Supreme Court reaffirms that in bogus purchase cases estimation of profit element is valid:

Supreme Court dismisses delayed SLP, upholding bogus purchase addition based on concurrent factual findings
Delay and lack of merit lead to dismissal of SLP

Supreme Court reaffirms that in bogus purchase cases estimation of profit element is valid
The assessee, an individual engaged in diamond trading through his proprietorship concern, filed his return for AY 2013–14 declaring modest income. Based on information from a search conducted on the Gautam Jain Group, the Assessing Officer alleged that the assessee had taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases. Despite furnishing invoices, bank statements, and stock records, the AO treated purchases exceeding Rs. 4.44 crore as non-genuine and added the entire amount to income.
On appeal, the CIT(A) granted partial relief by restricting the addition to 5% of such purchases. The ITAT, after considering comparable cases and profit margins, slightly modified the disallowance rate. However, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the assessee’s appeal, holding that the findings were purely factual and did not give rise to any substantial question of law.
Main Issue: Whether the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases and findings of accommodation entries warranted interference by the Supreme Court, particularly in light of substantial delay in filing the SLP.
SC's Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on both procedural and substantive grounds. It noted an inordinate delay of 750 days in filing the petition, which remained inadequately explained by the petitioner. On this ground alone, the Court found no justification to condone the delay.
Even on merits, the Court declined to interfere with the Gujarat High Court’s judgment. It observed that the High Court had affirmed findings based on appreciation of evidence, including material gathered during investigation into accommodation entry providers. Such findings, being factual in nature, did not warrant interference under Article 136. Therefore, the SLP was dismissed both on account of delay as well as lack of merit, and all pending applications were disposed of.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2182My Recent Articles
- ITAT: Entire Bogus Billing Bank Credits Cannot Be Taxed as IncomePremium
- ITAT Quashes Time-Barred Reassessment Following Supreme Court Limitation RulingsPremium
- ITAT Allows BSNL VRS Exemption Despite Omission in Income Tax ReturnPremium
- ITAT Allows BSNL VRS Tax Exemption Despite No Return ClaimPremium
- ITAT Grants BSNL VRS Exemption Despite No Claim in ReturnPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts









